Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:19:39 -0800
From: Rick Moen
To: Wayne Earl [...]
Subject: Re: djb legal hassle?
References:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
begin Wayne Earl quotation:
> I recently referred to your rants page in response to an SVLUG user
> question. I noticed that you state that Bernstein was legally threatening
> you. Why on $PLANET would he do that?
Oh, he felt that the Bugtraq post linked in the first paragraph from the
text "attempting to cram as much SMTP mail as possible" is "fraudulent",
and as evidence cited the fact that he has a Web page disputing it.
(He didn't threaten litigation, and I nowhere so claimed: As mentioned,
he said what I wrote was "libel" and "against the law".)
Here is almost all of the exchange. I didn't keep a copy of his
original query, in which he carped over the wording of the FAQ's prior
wording, which was arguably no longer accurate as it spoke of a fault
present only in really _old_ copies of qmail. As you'll see, I thanked
him, removed the arguably-incorrect text, and replaced it with current
text making essentially the same point -- i.e., that DJB's software
tends to be perveresely designed so as to "not play well with others"
while _strictly_ speaking still complying with (the letter of) the RFCs
(for selective values of "RFCs").
I like to make sure that the factual claims in my FAQs cannot be
quibbled with, and thus was glad to make that change: Really, DJB's
software is so _pervaded_ with examples of that trait that I had no
excuse for sloppiness, and so did not mind DJB's prodding on that point.
His calling my writings "libel", on the other hand, was way over the
line. (Among the many defects of that claim is that I nowhere impugned
_him personally_: You cannot libel a piece of software.)
Obviously, I cannot know what he was thinking, but can show you what he
wrote and let you evaluate that on its merits.
From rick Sun Feb 18 16:40:30 2001
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:40:30 -0800
To: djb@cr.yp.to
Subject: Correction made (thanks)
Dear Prof. Bernstein:
Thank you for calling attention to the "simultaneous SMTP connections"
claim about qmail at http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/warez.html#djb , which was
indeed arguably in error, and has been replaced with a more-accurate
example of the point I was driving at. That's what I get for attempting
to reproduce casual comments heard in prior years, without proper
research and verification. My apologies for any offence my error
caused.
I have also taken the opportunity of making more precise some wording
in the two paragraphs following, that had been bloody-mindedly misparsed
and misrepresented by some of your acolytes in the past. The
replacement wording should be much more difficult to misconstrue, even
willfully.
Last, I have fleshed out the bottom of the entry, as I've long intended
to do, with specific recommendations of genuinely open-source
alternatives to your codebases, for those of us who care about
licensing.
Soon, I'll probably add some words of appreciation for your truly heroic
role in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, and for the uniformly high
quality of your work: Credit where due.
--
Cheers, Before enlightenment, caffeine.
Rick Moen After enlightenment, caffeine.
rick@linuxmafia.com
From djb-dsn-982546648.13458@cr.yp.to Sun Feb 18 17:38:23 2001
Return-path:
Envelope-to: rick@linuxmafia.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:38:23 -0800
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181])
by uncle-enzo.linuxmafia.com with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 14UfHS-0001HC-00
for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:38:23 -0800
Received: (qmail 14747 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Feb 2001 01:37:28 -0000
Date: 19 Feb 2001 01:37:28 -0000
Message-ID: <20010219013728.13458.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein"
To: Rick Moen
Cc: djb@cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: Correction made (thanks)
References: <20010218164030.B1296@linuxmafia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Content-Length: 846
Lines: 17
Now you're claiming that ``earlier versions'' of qmail caused machines
to crash: ``Bernstein's software is ... pervaded by a bloody-minded
disregard for the rest of the world, e.g., qmail's trait (in earlier
versions) of attempting to cram as much SMTP mail as possible down
recipient systems' throats, which was notorious for crashing destination
mail systems (and thus pioneered the art of mail delivery as a Denial of
Service attack).''
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
Your ``attempting to cram as much SMTP mail as possible'' is now a link
to a message by Wietse Venema. That message is fraudulent, as discussed
in http://cr.yp.to/qmail/venema.html. Furthermore, I can't see where you
got the idea that Venema's message had any relevance to your claim, or
the idea that qmail has changed its SMTP delivery strategy.
---Dan
From rick@linuxmafia.com Sun Feb 18 21:10:36 2001
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:10:36 -0800
From: Rick Moen
To: "D. J. Bernstein"
Subject: Re: Correction made (thanks)
Reply-To: djb@cr.yp.to
Dear Prof. Bernstein:
You are perfectly welcome to pursue your jihad against what you regard
as "fraudulent claims". Just not in my mailbox. (Please note
Reply-To.)
The overall purpose of my FAQ page, in case it was not apparent, is to
dispose of annoyances that have previously cluttered up my
correspondence. Such as you, your rather bizarrely architected
software, and your [non-] licensing. Towards that end, it puts in one
neat location succinct versions of the answers I previously gave to
annoying questions, before I got tired of hearing them and even more
tired of answering them.
I believe this overall aim is, in fact, stated right up at the top of
the page.
Now, despite other oddities about you, you at least _are_ a bright boy.
So, I figure you can figure out what that portends for the likelihood of
my wishing any debate whatsoever with you or yours.
--
Cheers, My pid is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9
Rick Moen my parent process. Prepare to vi.
rick@linuxmafia.com
From djb-dsn-982560111.14825@cr.yp.to Sun Feb 18 21:21:50 2001
Return-path:
Envelope-to: rick@linuxmafia.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:21:50 -0800
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181])
by uncle-enzo.linuxmafia.com with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 14Uilg-0005O8-00
for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:21:49 -0800
Received: (qmail 11719 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Feb 2001 05:21:51 -0000
Date: 19 Feb 2001 05:21:51 -0000
Message-ID: <20010219052151.14825.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein"
To: rick@linuxmafia.com
Cc: djb@cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: Correction made (thanks)
References: <20010218164030.B1296@linuxmafia.com>
<20010219013728.13458.qmail@cr
.yp.to> <20010218211036.C1296@linuxmafia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Content-Length: 175
Lines: 5
You are publishing false statements on your web page, in reckless
disregard of the truth. That's libel. It's against the law. Are you
going to continue this behavior?
---Dan
From rick@linuxmafia.com Sun Feb 18 22:15:26 2001
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:15:26 -0800
From: Rick Moen
To: "D. J. Bernstein"
Subject: Re: Correction made (thanks)
begin D. J. Bernstein quotation:
> ...That's libel....
My personal FAQ entry about your software is neither untrue nor
defamatory, and accurately conveys my views on the subject, as designed.
However: My agent for service of process is Elster Haile, attorney at
law, of Palo Alto, California. You can look up the mailing address for
yourself.
As perhaps you know, multi-year civil lawsuits are exhausting and very
expensive. I prevailed in mine[1], which my family filed against Boeing
Corporation (without the EFF to support me), but it took its toll. You
may nonetheless feel it necessary to file, over this matter: Let your
conscience be your guide.
Otherwise, really, you have wasted enough of my time.
--
Cheers, Before enlightenment, caffeine.
Rick Moen After enlightenment, caffeine.
rick@linuxmafia.com
[1] RM comments: References here to "me", "I", and "mine" are a bit
inexact: The cited lawsuit was filed by my mother and other widows
in the wake of the PanAm Flight 799 disaster, for Boeing's negligence that
had proximately caused the death of Captain Arthur Moen and others on
board the exploding B707. Being 10 years old at the time, I personally
was only very nominally a party to that suit.